United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2906 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Rogelio Lagunas-Chavez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: June 10, 2019 Filed: July 5, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. When Rogelio Lagunas-Chavez pleaded guilty to using identification documents unlawfully, see 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), the magistrate judge1 at his change- 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, then Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, now United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. of-plea hearing warned him that, since he was not a U.S. citizen, "it is likely that after you've served your prison sentence, you will be immediately deported from the United States." Lagunas-Chavez said he understood. The magistrate judge also warned him that the "conviction may also affect your ability to ever legally reenter the United States or become a United States citizen," and Lagunas-Chavez again acknowledged that he understood. Then the magistrate judge asked if Lagunas- Chavez's attorney had "discuss[ed] with you the fact that you will likely be deported back to Mexico after you've served your prison sentence and that this conviction may affect your ability to ever legally reenter the United States or become a United States citizen," and he acknowledged that his attorney had indeed done so. The district court2 accepted Lagunas-Chavez's guilty plea and sentenced him to time served, which was 119 days in prison, and two years of supervised release. Lagunas-Chavez appeals, arguing that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel because "she provided insufficient advice regarding the immigration consequences" of his guilty plea. See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369 (2010). More specifically, he maintains that she failed to advise him that his crime of conviction "would very likely be classified as a crime involving moral turpitude by an immigration court, clearly and definitely resulting in his removability from the United States, mandatory detention, and loss of eligibility for cancellation of removal." We have already rejected a nearly identical argument from a defendant who was in nearly identical circumstances. In United States v. Ramirez-Jimenez, an alien pleaded guilty to violating § 1546(a), the same statute involved here. 907 F.3d 1091, 1092 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). The same magistrate judge advised that defendant that the conviction could "affect your ability to ever legally reent[er] the United States 2 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- or become a United States citizen," which the alien said he understood. The magistrate judge then asked the alien if his attorney had discussed with him "the fact that you may be deported after serving your prison sentence and that this conviction can affect your ability to ever legally reenter the United States or become a United States citizen," and the alien said his attorney ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals